Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
The fact that something is not mentioned in Genesis, which was never intended as a comprehensive history textbook, is a faulty argument for something not existing. Of course things like that can exist without being mentioned in Genesis.
Click to expand...
So, God wanted us to be in confusion ?

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

1 Corinthians 14:33
 
For those who like stories:

In a world, far far away, called Banjo-Kazooie,
in a cave surrounded by snow and ice,
the dad is trying to tell little Wozza Jr
that Santa Claus is not real,
that Christmas is about something far greater.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

But the little walrus will not hear of it.
“What about the presents!” he shouts.
There’s to be no talk of presents
not stated in terms of the north pole and jolly elves.

Expect that the dad won’t stop there.

Evolution is a story, a myth using materialistic symbolism. Of course we can speak to the philosophy of evolution - materialism and utilitarianism. The science is the same one that is explained in a more comprehensive and coherent manner by creation.
 
Techno2000 said:
40.png
Wozza:
We DO have explantions of what happened and we DO have explantions of how it happened. And as you yourself said earlier, it’s the best scientific answer we have. Period.
Click to expand...
Yeah…except when it come to how life started y’all scream…THAT’S ABIOGENESIS NOT EVOLUTION !!!
Click to expand...
I think it’s politely pointed out. Whenever anyone makes the effort to correct basic scientific illiteracy. Y’all.
 
Wozza said:
40.png
Aloysium:
40.png
Wozza:
it’s the best scientific answer we have. Period. We need go no further as to tbe process. We agree that we have the best scientific answer available.
Click to expand...
With evolutionary theories, science oversteps its bounds, those that are imposed by empiricism. That approach to the structure of things works to some degree as far as we are dealing with the simplest - matter, at least allowing us to build some pretty fantastic things. But, when we approach more complex existent forms, different approaches are required.

Let’s jump to the human strata of what is. We have such fields as psychology, sociology, political science and economics, not to mention philosphy and theology, to describe our relationships with reality. These are very much more complex than the simple and still enigmatic workings of matter. To begin to address how we got here, we have to understand who we are, and science cannot explain more than the constituent parts that are brought together as one whole, you and me.

In trying to explain how we got here based on a simplistic understanding of the person, trying to explain the origins of this resulting homunculus, the picture becomes increasingly distorted. The scientific data, although always a work in progress is actually fine with creation, which better puts it all together, but the mythos of our times, which justifies our behaviour towards one another and towards God, is naturally going to be accepted, albeit pseudoscience and untrue.
Click to expand...
Good grief, Al. More word salad. You are always determined to muddy the water. It’s crystal clear. And even Edgar agrees. The best scientific explanation for life as we know it is evolution by natural means. God’s natural means. Under God’s guidance. To achieve God’s will.

Any sign of an atheist agenda there? Any indication that God is denied? Any proposal that He is not involved? Any claim that we are not God’s creatures? Any demand that we accept only science as the answer to everything?

I see none. And you see none. Because there is none. But I’m sure that won’t prevent another stream-of-consciousness post containing words like pseudoscience, homunculus and mythos.

I’m going back to skipping your posts. You have your own agenda. It bears no relationship to the conversation.
Click to expand...
All he is saying, is that there’s something way more to a Human Being than meets the eye. And it can never be discerned by looking at it through the lens of evolution.
 
Point out where ANYONE has said that. Anywhere. In any thread. Anywhere in this forum. At any time.
 
Techno2000 said:
All he is saying, is that there’s something way more to a Human Being than meets the eye. And it can never be discerned by looking at it through the lens of evolution.
Click to expand...
Those who hear something more than word salad, may find the following interesting; I do:

What the eye sees is what we call the physical world. The visual world is what happens when those photons hit the rods and cones in our retna, setting off a chain of neurological interactions, a shifting of sodium and potassium through the cell membrane, travelling down the stretched out nerve cells to where they meet another and release specific proteins into the space between them; these are picked up by receptors on the other side, to trigger another travelling action potential, to be repeated millions of times by different neurons in the various parts of the brain and brain stem. The visual world may be thought of as a psychological event reflecting how the brain is “wired”. A small stroke in what is called the thalamus, healed causing a change in the pattern of neuronal excitation resulted in some individuals seeing what would be taste. There are people who see sounds. This is all a spiritual event, a union of one’s being with that which is other. In the perception is the physical aspect of the thing in itself, the reflection of light which travels into the eye, the neuroanatomy and physiology, and the self, triune in nature, one person-in-the-world. We don’t bring all this into existence, but God in whose image we are made.

This is one way in which we know our world, as psychophysical-spiritual entities. There is more to a human being than their appearance, and we know it when we gaze into their eyes, connecting with a person, whole and unique, beloved when we truly see them, as they are, as they are known by God.

The story that is evolution distorts the reality of what is and what happened, filling in the massive gaps in our knowledge with materialistic and utilitarian assumptions based on how many see the world as operating. The lens of science has always been determined by our technics, which is the metaphor we use for our understanding, which in turn allows us to further the development of our technology. One of the interesting shifts may be with information technology transforming our understanding of everything as being information, a step beyond the electronic age it would appear. Evolution takes what little we get through science, and puts it together creating that illusion.The theories of evolution are not the best science can do, because they aren’t science really. Evolution is an interpretation of science that suits the purposes of modern society, be it consumerist or communist.
 
Last edited:
Wozza said:
We DO have explantions of what happened and we DO have explantions of how it happened. And as you yourself said earlier, it’s the best scientific answer we have.
Click to expand...
So what? Does the best scientific answer mean it’s the truth? Of course it doesn’t. Such an answer is as meaningless as humans coming up with the best scientific explanation for how Jesus turned water into wine.
The answer has already been decided. Because we have agreed that we can understand how natural laws governed the process.
Click to expand...
But you can’t prove it - which means “we” may be wrong, and in my opinion, almost certainly are.
But does that mean that God was not involved and that everything is entirely random and not part of His plan? NO. IT DOESN’T!
Click to expand...
Make up your mind - one moment you’re saying evolution is a natural process and the next you’re saying it isn’t.
You can accept the process as part of God’s plan which He has allowed to procede within His natural laws or you can demand a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible.
Click to expand...
This is an excellent example of the Informal Fallacy of the False Dilemma.
 
Last edited:
This is the most posted thread on CAF. Ever. But not the one with the most views. That one is about eating meat on Fridays or similar.
 
Edgar said:
40.png
Wozza:
We DO have explantions of what happened and we DO have explantions of how it happened. And as you yourself said earlier, it’s the best scientific answer we have.
Click to expand...
So what? Does the best scientific answer mean it’s the truth? Of course it doesn’t. Such an answer is as meaningless as humans coming up with the best scientific explanation for how Jesus turned water into wine.
The answer has already been decided. Because we have agreed that we can understand how natural laws governed the process.
Click to expand...
But you can’t prove it - which means “we” may be wrong, and in my opinion, almost certainly are.
But does that mean that God was not involved and that everything is entirely random and not part of His plan? NO. IT DOESN’T!
Click to expand...
Make up your mind - one moment you’re saying evolution is a natural process and the next you’re saying it isn’t.
You can accept the process as part of God’s plan which He has allowed to procede within His natural laws or you can demand a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible.
Click to expand...
This is an excellent example of the Informal Fallacy of the False Dilemma.
Click to expand...
Of course it may not be true. But science allows for that. If you want to be pedantic then it may not true that the sun will rise tomorrow.

We take what we know and formulate theories which best explain the observations in a natural way. Science doesn’t associate itself with the supernatural. And if you know a better theory that does that then let me know. All other explanations use supernatural means. That is, using a process that falls outside natural laws.

And for what must be the thousandth time…no, it can’t be proved. Because it is a theory. Now get a large sheet of paper and some crayons and write down tbe following:

THEORIES CANNOT BE PROVED

Now stick that on the wall where you can see it from your pc or laptop or whatever you use to post.

And yes, evolution is a natural process. It uses natural laws. And who do you think put those natural laws in place? Who set things up and initiated the.process and made sure it runs exactly as He wishes? Any offers? I’ll take a stab at this myself and suggest that your answer will be: God. So does that mean God isn’t involved? That God isn’t the creator?

You seem to think that something that happens naturally removes God from the process. Does He simply allow things to happen and then think:‘Gee, I never planned on that happening’.

And it is most definitely not a false dilema. Either you accept evolution or you believe in supernatural creation as per a literal interpretation of scripture.
 
edwest said:
“accept evolution” Or we’ll keep posting…
Click to expand...
Because you believe in a literal reading of scripture.

Did you check out that site on building arks? Fascinating what people will accept as being literally true. Or maybe that’s a bridge too far for you. Imagine being in bed with the likes of Ken Ham. The horror…the horror…
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top